What next for the UCI?

I posted this in the comments of one of the news stories but I think it's probably an entirely separate discussion so I'll stick it here too:

drheaton wrote:

This may not be what everyone would like to see but this is what I expect to happen now.

1) McQuaid won't quit, he'll see out the rest of his term (until next year) because he knows he can't be ousted and then he'll step aside

2) He'll leave on his own terms and try to build a legacy based on anti-doping, namely taking credit for the blood passport and being in charge when Armstrong was banned

3) He will pick a successor much as Verbruggen did in picking McQuaid and hand over the reigns of the UCI to someone who is pretty much a McQuaid clone.

4) Things won't change.

The main points though are 3 and 4. Whoever takes over from McQuaid whether he quits, is forced out or leaves of his own accord, will basically be someone who is working closely with McQuaid now meaning they're basically another McQuaid with a different suit.

There needs to be huge change in how cycling is governed but that goes way deeper than McQuaid and the head of the UCI. The only things that can get close to shaking up the UCI to the required extent are either

a) Cycling is banned from the Olympics (or the IOC threaten a ban) until the UCI puts it's house in order, that'll mean every national federation up in arms and descending on the UCI to complain or

b) A huge corruption scandal (that isn't just accusations about covered up doping). This is just as unlikely because there just isn't enough money in cycling to cause the same level of corruption as the IOC and FIFA have suffered. Unless someone digs out evidence that Qatar bought the World Champs and paid McQuaid a load of money then I can't see there being anything widespread. Like McQuaid has said, the UCI doesn't have the same financial clout as FIFA and they don't make any money out of the big races in the same way that FIFA and the IOC cash in on the world cup and olympics.

The only smoking gun which could exist and turn this all on it's head is if someone can prove that the UCI took money to cover up a positive test. Seeing as nobody has been able to do that yet even though the USADA has been investigating for years I can't see that happening unfortunately.

Where do you all think the UCI and McQuaid go from here? Is McQuaid solely to blame? Will removing him actually make any difference whatsoever or would it actually end up being a smoke screen to pacify cycling fans whilst not actually changing the UCI in any way?

My money is on him getting a honoury life vice presidency or something

1 comments

Sort by

Raleigh[1667 posts]5 years ago

0 likes

My outlandish theory is this:

The UCI wants as much media exposure as possible, as does Rupert Murdoch.
The only way that they know how to get into mainstream sports media is by uncovering a doping scandal.
Doesn't get much bigger than Armstrong, everyone knows about him.
Murdoch and McQuaid paid hundreds of thousands, millions even, for Armstrong to 'go down' in exchange for a couple of weeks worth of prime exposure in the media, not least SKY news.
Hamilton and co. decide to bound in with allegations that Armstrong forced them to dope etc.
These are false, but they just want financial bonuses for getting more news time.
The UCI and Murdoch start getting annoyed at Hamilton and co. and pay them to shut up.
Someone uncovers what they've done, and all hell breaks loose. I mean ALL HELL.
The new breakaway league of teams is established, there is NO doping at all, transfer fees are introduced and Cycling becomes the most popular sport on the planet.